I think we all define what a good DM/Gen is a little differently so it's a tough question.   I want a gritty realistic combat heavy game with minimal silly stuff and little non-combat role playing. So when a GM focuses on staying in character, humour and fast combat encounters I hate it.  Many like that style of GMing however. 

Does a guy run a game the players enjoy? He's a good GM.

What else matters?

Quote from: BadApple on December 26, 2024, 02:07:29 AMDoes a guy run a game the players enjoy? He's a good GM.

What else matters?

GM not busting a vessel in the process? >_>
just kidding. i do agree, there's still the question of how's one to improve, and what criteria to use to judge that, though.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2024, 09:52:42 PMMost such crap GMs don't actually realize they're crap GMs and so make no effort to improve. They keep trying again and again to rope people into their campaigns where they keep doing the same crappy things because whatever the crappy thing is is actually the reason they're GMing for in the first place.

This is where I add a caveat to my usual insistence that system is the least important aspect (after people, snacks, and setting); not unimportant, but the least important of the four.

Some systems are complete, and so require little imagination from the GM and players. Some systems are incomplete, and so require more imagination.

A long time ago I helped run a course where I was training women, and I lied to them and said the standards for women were now the same as for men. To my knowledge, I had more women achieve the men's standards than any course before. People tend to rise to the standards set for them.

I've seen a difference in the way people play systems like GURPS, which purports to cover ever eventuality, and systems like Risus, which purports to cover pretty much nothing. With regard to players, some have called it "the drop-down menu effect" - players used to computer games and given a system purporting to cover everything will, when the GM says, "what do you do?" look down at their character sheet so they can apply Skill X to Situation Y. Whereas if they just find "Fighter 1st level, Strength 15," etc there, they look straight back up and start thinking.

This is fairly well-known. What's less-appreciated is that the same applies to the GM too. Systems which cover everything discourage imagination and creativity. Incomplete systems encourage it.

Complete systems will make the GM think that they can get it right if they just apply the system right, if they obediently follow the adventure module and so on. Incomplete systems leave the GM to their own devices. In either case you find people rise to the standards set for them. With a complete system, the GM tries to follow the standards of the system; with an incomplete system, the GM tries to follow the standards of the people at the game table.

People can and do improve in their performance at whatever you care to think of - but someone or something must set the standards.

My experiences have been similar.  A lot of GMs are obviously unprepared and apathetic if they even bother to show up at all.  Unprepared GMs floundering around leads to bored, irritated players.  People constantly bog down the game with stuff that is marginally relevant at best.  Sometimes, players will act out in game just to try to make something happen because they are bored and disconnected.  They are bored and disconnected because the GM doesn't know what they are doing, both figuratively and literally, and the game is going nowhere.  This mostly isn't beginner GMs either.  It's people who say they have significant experience and, sometimes, even more experience than me.  It's amazing how long some GMs can string things out without anything actually happening in the game.  In one game, we went 2 1/2 hours out of the first 4 1/2 hours doing solo scenes with one of the players in which nothing happened while the rest of us sat around doing nothing.  GMs who run boring, meandering sessions where nothing much happens seem to be overrepresented among people who run Call of Cthulhu on Roll20.  People have praised by Call of Cthulhu games because, essentially, things happen in them and their characters get to do Call of Cthulhu investigator things like have a bout of madness.  It's a pretty low bar but apparently it's noteworthy.               

           

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 27, 2024, 08:02:40 AMMy experiences have been similar.  A lot of GMs are obviously unprepared and apathetic if they even bother to show up at all.  Unprepared GMs floundering around leads to bored, irritated players.  People constantly bog down the game with stuff that is marginally relevant at best.  Sometimes, players will act out in game just to try to make something happen because they are bored and disconnected.  They are bored and disconnected because the GM doesn't know what they are doing, both figuratively and literally, and the game is going nowhere.  This mostly isn't beginner GMs either.  It's people who say they have significant experience and, sometimes, even more experience than me.  It's amazing how long some GMs can string things out without anything actually happening in the game.  In one game, we went 2 1/2 hours out of the first 4 1/2 hours doing solo scenes with one of the players in which nothing happened while the rest of us sat around doing nothing.  GMs who run boring, meandering sessions where nothing much happens seem to be overrepresented among people who run Call of Cthulhu on Roll20.  People have praised by Call of Cthulhu games because, essentially, things happen in them and their characters get to do Call of Cthulhu investigator things like have a bout of madness.  It's a pretty low bar but apparently it's noteworthy.               

           

For a long time I had imposter syndrome running games.  Even today, I don't think I'm a great GM and I certainly see my own failings when running.  OTOH, I always do the best prep I can and I always care about running a good session.  Most of my players over the years have been excited for game night and I have been complemented by players that also run.

I'm absolutely convinced that the two biggest keys to being a GM is doing the best prep you can and doing the best you can to run a good session for your players.  Anything else is gravy and no matter what else you do without these won't work.

I don't think I am some great GM but I do have some idea what I am going to do going in to the session and try to make the game fun and interesting for my players.  I try to anticipate at least the most obvious possibilities and have some plan for them.  I would have thought that was the bare minimum.  Apparently not.   

my competence level is a 2 on a d20.  Maybe 3.

How would you measure this?

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:30:10 PMHow would you measure this?

From the base.

What is the base of competence?

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:36:22 PMWhat is the base of competence?

The opposite end from the tip.

Look. The length of the competence is not the only metric for success. We must also take into account the girth and degree of firmness of the GM's experience.

Quote from: BadApple on December 26, 2024, 02:07:29 AMDoes a guy run a game the players enjoy?

In a lot of cases, the answer is obviously no even if the GM doesn't seem to notice how increasingly bored and irritated the players are getting.

Quote from: Hzilong on December 28, 2024, 01:03:44 AMLook. The length of the competence is not the only metric for success. We must also take into account the girth and degree of firmness of the GM's experience.

It's also imperative to consider the refractory period needed between sessions.